UKH

On principle I have never signed up to the monthly extortion racket of renting Adobe kit. And until this week I've been religiously using my seven year old copy of Lightroom 5.7.

Disclaimer, the seven year old Lightroom still works perfectly well and I get great results, however I'm not happy with the extra hoops I have to jump through to use it. As my copy is so old it does not support the RAW files created by my modern cameras and I have to use the free Adobe RAW converter to convert the RAW files to DGN files that it will play with.

Also as the software it is not so hot with Noise Reduction, which is practically essential for a micro four thirds camera, I use a plug-in called Topaz DeNoise to clean up the image.

As a stand-alone bit of kit Topaz DeNoise is a pile of doggie poo when editing DGN files. Its not really a RAW converter and as such buggers the White Balance/Colour Science of any DGN files that it works with. It has no problems what so ever with JPGs.

However using it as a Plug-in with Lightroom and it is awsome, even my seven year old copy.

This week I got fed up with all the hoops that I have to jump through and bought a licence for DxO Photolabs. Before I parted with a sizable wedge of cash on the price of this bit of kit I trailed the month free version, with zero restrictions, so knew what I was getting into.

DxO on its own has modern tools that my old Lightroom could not even dream of, but not a few features that the current Lightroom has such as sexy masks. However DxO's RAW conversion and Noise Reduction is superb and produces better results than Topaz. And trust me, Topaz is good. I paid for it.

The only reason that I would ever revert to my ageing Lightroom is if I have an image that needs a little extra sharpening. DxO and Lightroon do a good job of sharpening but they are streets behind compared to Topaz Sharpening. So, I edit in DxO and then export to my seven year old Lightroom where I use the Topaz Sharpening as a Plug-in to sharpen my images. That software performs witchcraft, even with blurry images.

Long story short, I can't see myself ever falling victim of paying a monthly ransom to use software just to edit my photos.

https://www.darktable.org/

Same here, went for DxO over LR monthly. 

The noise reduction is pretty impressive, so is Clearview but don't get addicted to using it or push the slider too far!

Ironically I needed to go for the update to get my new camera to work and its probably mot cost me much less that Adobe over the same period....

Yes, I have ditched the last piece of software that was anchoring me to Windows (Lightroom and Photoshop) and have embraced Darktable (and to a lesser extent GIMP).

The learning curve of Darktable is a bit steep but it is incredibly powerful, much more so than Lightroom. As a software developer I'm also looking forward to writing some of my own modules using some of the more interesting CNN based operations.

For many years I resisted moving to LR, instead using the free software with my Nikon cameras to upload pictures and old versions of Photoshop Elements to process them. I had a rather cranky system for cataloguing and finding old pictures was difficult. I was also frequently downloading the latest Adobe RAW to match my various cameras.

During the restrictions I got more interested in processing and decided that the £10 a month for the Adobe Photo package was worthwhile. This has revolutionised my photography, not only in the vast range of processing but also finding pictures is now so easy. It has also saved space by using collections to group pictures, I used to copy them into themed folders!

Whilst I understand the arguments about big tech holding us to ransome, I will never regret what I think is a reasonable rental charge to use an amazing package for my rewarding hobby.

£10 per month as part of an enjoyable hobby doesn’t seem much to me.

I used Luminar for a bit, and to a lesser extent Gimp, but am happier with LR / PS.

Its great there’s so many free / one off payment / subscription options, something for everyone 😊

It's always worth looking on (the dreaded) Amazon around the end of November at the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography plan - it's usually on offer around Black Friday time. I bought a couple of 1 year licenses for £72, so will be paying £6 a month for the next 2 years. I use LR pretty much every day, so good value for me really.

That's a good tip.

The only editing I do is in my iPhone! And I only shoot jpeg.  I’m more of a birdwatcher than a photographer, but feel the need to take my photography more seriously. Been thinking about Topaz Denoise but interested to hear your views on DxO. How much does it cost?

Topaz DeNoise + Lightroom is an excellent combination.

Topaz on its own and JPEGs a good combination.

As for DxO it costs £200 for 3 licences. That's, I think, two years worth of Adobe rent.

DxO is excellent for reducing noise and editing RAW images. I've discovered that using Topaz Sharpen really improves the image further.

There is nothing wrong with shooting JPEGS especially if you are happy with the results edited on your phone.

However you'd be amazed at how much more detail you can get from your photos, if you took RAW images and edited those. It is something that has to be seen, rather than trying to explain in a word based environment.

Topaz DeNoise + Lightroom is an excellent combination.

Topaz on its own and JPEGs a good combination.

As for DxO it costs £200 for 3 licences. That's, I think, two years worth of Adobe rent.

DxO is excellent for reducing noise and editing RAW images. I've discovered that using Topaz Sharpen really improves the image further.

There is nothing wrong with shooting JPEGS especially if you are happy with the results edited on your phone.

However you'd be amazed at how much more detail you can get from your photos, if you took RAW images and edited those. It is something that has to be seen, rather than trying to explain in a word based environment.

Your camera/phone capture's information and when you select JPEG then the camera actively throws some of that information away in order to save space and allow the images to be seen and shared immediately.

A camera/phone that captures a RAW image captures everything and stores that information in a large file that can not easily be seen or shared over the internet unless the recipient has a way of opening that RAW file. And then you have to open that RAW file in photo editing software but you have the luxury of being able to edit all the data captured. You get to choose what information to keep or throw away.

You will eventually have to convert that RAW file into a JPEG to share around the world.

You just choose where you want to spend/waste your time.

With my phone, I shoot JPEG and I'm happy with the results of my Pixel 6a.

And when I play with my camera I shoot RAE because I enjoy the editing process.

In day before digital you had two choices with your roll of camera film. You get supasnaps to develope and print your images or you personally develop the film and choose which images to print and how.

With digital JPEG is Supasnaps and RAW is developing yourself.

Worth noting that DXO only works with supported camera and lens combinations and that it is frequently on offer (30% and 50% off).  I moved from Adobe to DXO + Affinity Photo a few years ago (photo lab 3) and haven’t looked back; I use photoshop and lightroom for work and see no benefit (for normal photo editing). I do have to turn the default sharpness down on DXO though…

I'd appreciate and tips or advice you could offer to help my learning curve.

Any advice on sharpening and unsharp mask would be most welcome.

When I used Elements my default sharpening tool was Unsharp mask. Once I had tried varying the three (rather obscure) parameters to my liking I would apply it most of my pictures. Through various Youtube videos I learnt about a different approach that is now my preferred option, the High Pass filter. It works as follows; you create a copy of the background layer then apply the high pass filter (from 'other' filters). It has only one parameter which is essentially the intensity and the result is a grey scale showing the areas affected. The key is to then alter the blend mode to produce the sharpening, from Overlay to Vivid light are the most useful and the result is clearly seen. As an additional control you can use the opacity to reduce the effect. This works really well for me, hope this is useful.

Yup, I agree. People are prepared to spend thousands in camera kit but refuse to buy software for some reason. Baffling to me.

Is there some reason to need both DxO and Affinity Photo, does one do something that the other doesn't? 

To The Lemming - I am assuming your three licences are useful for installing on one more than device. I will work only on my Mac Mini but I see no option to get only one licence and pay less. 

I am still pondering what to get. I don't object to a monthly subscription; I am in the "£10 a month is worth it". I've never used Lightroom. I've used old versions of Photoshop that either came installed (with dubious provenance) on second hand Macs or in my first instance, circa 2002, totally pirated. I trialled Affinity a couple of years ago and didn't get on with it so well. I've had some time off from digital photography aside from phone snapshots but am getting back into it, I have nice some cameras and finally a decent new computer, large monitor and good desk set up, and I need to move with the times.

I've been following the numerous threads on these topics and it seems to me that the major reason not to go with Lightroom, is a principled objection (not just The Lemming, others too) to the subscription model. I understand that, but if I don't object, it seems like it's the good option. 

All that said - I need very little other than a RAW convertor (for Canon and Sony) and basic curves and levels. Tagging, filing etc I am not too bothered about, I just save each image manually under filename in a folder). Am I to understand that there is a free Adobe RAW reader / editor? I was unaware of this! 

Only that I find dialling the lens sharpening module back by say 0.3 - 0.5 (negative) often gives a more natural (to my eyes) result.  I find the default setting can make highly textured subjects too crunchy (again, to my eyes).

Unsharp mask has always seemed a dark art…   

DXO is more than often enough for my needs. I use affinity when using an unsupported camera/ lens combination, or when I need to blend exposures or use luminosity masks.  Although I can’t speak for the more recent DXO versions, Lightroom does seem perhaps more capable in terms of applying complex masks. 

thanks. I don’t do anything with masks as per my previous post, and not too bothered about the software recognising the hardware that created the image (I understand vaguely that this can be helpful eg for converging verticals etc)

You might find that rawtherapee is more than enough for your needs then.

I think that's to some extent because people forget why they might want/need to sharpen images (in the broadest sense). (1) To offset any anti-aliasing filter effects in the sensor (if there is one), (2) to increase the apparent visual acuity of the observer and (3) to offset optical (lens) aberrations. For best effect (1) above needs to be done as the first step of any post-processing and is fixed for any given camera, (2) is very dependent on the final medium (display, print...), image resolution and viewing conditions and can only be done well if they are known. Finally (3) isn't really 'sharpening' and is better seen as 'deblurring' and is best done with deconvolution rather than the more common tools like unsharp mask (lens aberrations are rarely even remotely Gaussian). Simply applying an unsharp mask as part of the process of producing a single jpeg that might be seem on a monitor, printed on a wall or glanced at on a phone is never going anything more than a hit and miss affair.

There seems to be a lot of talk of noise and sharpening on this thread rather than the basic adjustments to shadows and highlights. I hardly ever do any and just stick with the default settings for my camera on the software I use. Is it something really worth worrying about or is it more one of those things that it is possible to get obsessive about but which actually makes next to no noticeable difference to photos?

Maybe we could all experiment with the same sample DGN/RAW image and see what we can do with our various attempts?

I was/am in the situation...  even though I still have LR5.7, I have been in the process to migrate to Darktable (ha... 2 years on, and still ongoing).

When I last researched this, the problems was the catalog-feature. While there are many RAW converters, a lot of them did not offer a proper catalog/digital asset management. A few commercial products were promising that  (2 years ago, not sure if it ever materialized), and for Mac I recall Darktable was the only real option. I still think, LR was easier/better to use, but Darktable is still useful enough (and constantly gettin' better).

Thanks Marek, I'll take a look at it later today

If anybody would like to experiment with one of my images which has ample noise, from an image that was taken just after sunset, then have at it. 😀

Its not going to win any awards but its a test shot for giggles.

I'd appreciate any tips or advice on noise reduction, sharpening or anything in general.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wYwmYXXoGpft2_-NUpzHHF-nSw3Bzffh/view?usp=...

For me, the choice is not only about the price tag – it's about the software and the business model itself.

I can't install just Lightroom and Photoshop. Those should *just* be applications that open and save image files – having as little footprint on the computer as MS Paint – but, to have those, I also have to have Adobe Creative Cloud, Adobe Fonts, all of Adobe's always-on, always-online, always-cloud-connected background services, automatic updates all the time, advertisements trying to up-sell me to other Adobe stuff all the time, nagging to agree to changed terms-and-conditions (without recourse or any option to decline) all the time, and all the rest.

I don't want that: I just want the programs to open and save image files.

I have to pay constantly. By now, I must have spent the better part of a thousand on Adobe subscriptions over the years and yet they have not added one single feature that I really care about in ages – the last "new" feature I found worthwhile was the integration of panorama stitching directly into the Lightroom U.I. and that was years ago and just a convenience, anyway, since the underlying functionality was already present.

The subscription model has the consequence that innovation and new features are not necessary – they will take their premium either way. Traditional, 'boxed' software would need to offer new features in order to justify upgrades between versions and those features would have to appeal to users. Instead, Adobe offer new-fangled cloud-based and A.I.-based things that do NOT appeal to me in the slightest.

If I had had the choice between keeping an old version sans all that rubbish – bought and paid for – and upgrading, there is no question that I would have saved my money.

I've paid and I've paid for years and years and, now, if I decide that I've paid "enough" and don't want what Adobe are offering as "new", I'm left with absolutely nothing at all. I don't keep the old version. I don't keep what I've paid hundreds for.

I also lose all my metadata that's locked in to their proprietary database and file-formats. (I can export some of it with reasonable success but that's not perfect.)

How much money do I consider to be "enough"? Well, certainly, had Adobe offered me the feature-set that I care about and priced it at the sum of what I have paid, in total, I would not have bought it! (I might have paid one hundred Euros – perhaps even two hundred – but to have been paying their subscription for most of a decade? No way in hell!)

To justify a continual subscription, Adobe would have to offer some kind of continual service of value. They don't – I have no interest in their cloud.

Neither do they offer a deadline or maximum at which point I can claim a right to keep my version in perpetuity, as something I've bought and paid for. Why should I pay, forever, with no prospect of any right to own a product? If I buy an expensive tool on the never-never, at least at some time, it's paid off and I own the thing.

To reach an end where – one decade from now – I'm not still paying, I have to quit the program and take the short-term hit. I have, in fact, cancelled my Adobe subscription just last month – I wish I had done so years ago. (This also frees me from Microsoft Windows so I will never have to confront the question of downgrading to Windows 11.)

I am perfectly happy to buy software. I am perfectly happy to buy upgrades with appealing features, too. Adobe are not offering me any option to "buy" their software.

Hmm, now you put it like that, I see that I've been looking at it all too simplistically. Thanks. 

Furthermore, on the note of those "Terms and Conditions", read this → https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/07/adobe_ai_training/

Do you consent to allowing *your* photographs and videos to be exploited by Adobe to further the research and development of their proprietary, for-profit products, without compensation? The answer is irrelevant: unless you both know that they're doing this AND take action to "opt out", your consent is not required: they will do what they please.

Did you agree to those terms when you entered into dealings with them? Again, the answer is irrelevant because they change the terms after the transation has concluded, after the fact, obscuring the change and making the system "opt out" instead of "opt in".

Do you consent to whatever they might do, next? Surely, you won't be consulted!

I am not entirely sure I have made up my own mind about the morality and ethics regarding exploitation of creative content for training of A.I. models.

I am absolutely bloody adamant that that's entirely up to me and not their decision to take!

As long as you use the software or services of an entity like Adobe, you are subject to their whims and their judgement. Whether I consider their price tag to be affordable or not – on any scale – is irrelevant because I do not agree to have them make these decisions on my behalf, without my acceptance or my explicit consent.

And people are now looking at this business model, during recessions, and seeing equivalent or better products that cost less spread over a couple of years and knowing that they own the software.

With Adobe you are hooked like an addict forced to keep paying to use something because of familiarity and fear of losing time, if it's your job, learning new software.

Long gone are the days of me using pirated software as it's too much of a risk financially and with my personal data being stolen or encrypted for ransom.

I am happy to pay for software if it provides value to me.

And people are now looking at this business model, during recessions, and seeing equivalent or better products that cost less spread over a couple of years and knowing that they own the software.

With Adobe you are hooked like an addict forced to keep paying to use something because of familiarity and fear of losing time, if it's your job, learning new software.

Long gone are the days of me using pirated software as it's too much of a risk financially, with Trojans or data mining of bank details and with my personal data being stolen or encrypted for ransom.

I am happy to pay for software if it provides value to me.

There used to be a story - maybe apocryphal - where are a room full of photographers was asked 'Who uses Photoshop" and every hand went up, "and who actually bought a copy?" and 95+% of the hands went down. That's presumably why Adobe moved to a subscription model,

Chris

What would happen if those subscribers just stopped paying?

Maybe the majority of Adobe's clients are businesses who can afford to offset the monthly subscriptions to their clients as costs?

Anybody interested in the offer at timestamp Sunday 10:41 to help me learn/test how to use sharpening and Noise Reduction?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wYwmYXXoGpft2_-NUpzHHF-nSw3Bzffh/view?usp=...

Well I've had a go using Lightroom. I could reduce the noise (mainly in the clouds) by just tweaking slightly the Colour and Contrast noise adjustments, and sharpened the walker slightly again with a small tweak to the sharpening slider (but not so far as to create artefacts round the figure). Not enormous adjustments given the subject. I'm not entirely sure the sharpening required would warrant use of a specialist app for the job unless you were seeking to sharpen the dog/birds as well but that looks like it would take an AI tool to sort.

You might have had scope for reducing the noise in the image before pressing the shutter release - ISO3200 and f9 feel like big numbers for the subject / light. Reducing the ISO and opening the aperture a touch might have given you a cleaner image in the first place. Likewise avoiding the bright clouds at the top of the image would have reduced the dynamic range a little and given you a bit more room to manoeuvre with the exposure. But its easy to be wise after the event! On the other hand I don't know how MFT behaves in low light.

Well I've had a go using Lightroom. I could reduce the noise (mainly in the clouds) by just tweaking slightly the Colour and Contrast noise adjustments, and sharpened the walker slightly again with a small tweak to the sharpening slider (but not so far as to create artefacts round the figure). Not enormous adjustments given the subject. I'm not entirely sure the sharpening required would warrant use of a specialist app for the job unless you were seeking to sharpen the dog/birds as well but that looks like it would take an AI tool to sort.

You might have had scope for reducing the noise in the image before pressing the shutter release - ISO3200 and f9 feel like big numbers for the subject / light. Reducing the ISO and opening the aperture a touch might have given you a cleaner image in the first place. Likewise avoiding the bright clouds at the top of the image would have reduced the dynamic range a little and given you a bit more room to manoeuvre with the exposure. But its easy to be wise after the event! On the other hand I don't know how MFT behaves in low light.

I deliberately chose this test shot because of the high amount of noise for people to play with. 😀

Good choice! Though I was amazed at how clean the image from such a small sensor at such a high ISO turned out. Going back even 10 years, ISO3200 full frame images could be more or less unusable without major surgery.

With some modern cameras there is the luxury of ISO Invariance which means that it does not matter what ISO you choose as its all the same where you can bump up the exposure in post-production, it won't suffer noise. You'll still over-expose and clip highlights but noise be gone. Most cameras these day's have a semi ISO Invariance with a sweet-spot of an ISO range where it does not matter what you choose. Wit my Panasonic G9 that range is between 800 and 6400 to possibly 128,000 at a very big push.

However I digress, I'm hoping that we can experiment with noise and sharpness of different bits of software.

Ok, in your 1041 Sunday post you asked for advice including "anything in general" so here's my take on your pic. I'm afraid I used Lightroom though (I'm one of the victims of paying the monthly ransom ).

Firstly I cropped it to exclude that bright area of sky at the top which is a bit distracting. I increased the general brightness and contrast quite a bit. I also brought up the shadows to show a bit of detail in the person rather than have a complete silhouette.

Then I added a linear mask with a very soft edge from the top down to just above the horizon, and darkened and added a bit more contrast to the sky which brings out those lovely pinky purples in the clouds.

Then I just ran it through Topaz DeNoise using the low light setting with all the sliders turned down very low.

I don't think I could have reduced the noise satisfactorily using Lightroom alone without turning the foreground into a horrible blur. Someone with better processing skills could probably do better.

It's a very quick edit but the result looks rather nice on my 27" photo editing monitor. There are a few artifacts around the walker but it looks fine at a normal viewing distance. If I had taken it I would be very happy with that as a nice soothing desktop background.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u_nRJQWk2vK1PhOYNz3Tm7qHjX2Nc578/view?usp=...

Very nice.

With my copy of DxO I can't seem to find a graduated filter. I'm sure one must exist but for the life of me I can't find it. I shall try and tinker with DxO alone and not use any Topaz kit for a comparison.

I think I will take your suggestion and use this as my desktop for a while. Here is my edit using DxO only for Noise and Sharpening. I was quite surprised at how much detail I could pull back into the walker.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-yIpY2tRN6XYapnWOlVfWbNZKyRiyj1c/view?usp=...

I am gobsmacked at how much detail I pulled out of the walker and dog. I genuinely thought this was a throw away image from a crappy afternoon when my intended subject matter failed. I just turned the camera around and took a pot shot of the landscape opposite to where I wanted.

Nicely done. You've retained a lot more detail in the clouds than I managed and the little crop at the bottom makes the image more balanced.

And here is my attempt with Lightroom 5.7, Topaz Denoise and Topaz Sharpen. I did not use any Lightroom Sharpen or denoise.

I have to admit that Dxo handles the noise a lot better in my eyes without making the image look plasticy

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16V5ZgBxWgBUySv6TfDXwB7eFu-fykfG9/view?usp=...